Google changes its monetization strategy toward a Microsoft one?

I was just talking with Dave Winer and we both noticed one thing in the custom search engine videos I posted on the ScobleShow yesterday that could signal a change in Google’s monetization strategy.

If you use the Google search component on your Web site you’ve gotta accept Google’s advertising too.

See, when I was at Microsoft I was really impressed by Google’s strategy because it really screwed with Microsoft’s strategy.

Let me explain.

At Microsoft each group, like local.live.com, is really run like a separate company underneath a venture capital firm. In fact, Microsoft’s execs look at Microsoft like a venture capital firm. They invest in ideas that get pitched to them through Bill Gates’ ThinkWeek site, then watch to see if they are coming through on their plans.

It works the exact same way on Sand Hill Road, right? If PodTech doesn’t meet its revenue projections, or if it spends too much on new servers, the VCs get nervous. If it goes on long enough they start shutting groups down. That’s why we’re all nervous about when this Web 2.0 bubble will start deflating.

So, what does that all mean? Well, if you’re a group program manager at Microsoft you’ve gotta “sell” your team’s ideas to execs and one of their questions is how you’ll bring revenue into Microsoft and keep expenses under control. If you don’t have a good idea of how revenue will come in, you probably won’t get funded. There are exceptions, but they are rare and they probably don’t get to exist in product groups.

Now, how did Google mess with all that? Well, Google was funding stuff without any clear monetization strategy. Google Maps, for instance, doesn’t have ads. Did you see the “Classified” button on Microsoft’s maps?

See the apparent difference in company strategy?

Now, why was Google’s strategy brilliant? Even better, why did it totally mess with Microsoft’s business model?

It got them a great brand name. Remember Maryam’s nephew in Wales? He said “I’ll Google that.”

Why did he say that? Because Google has — by giving away its services and not having any apparent monetization strategy — built an awesome brand name. One that’s in front of you on millions of web sites/blogs/MySpace pages, etc.

Google Maps are used on all sorts of Web sites, for instance (that list probably only has 1/100,000 of what’s really out there — I’m seeing Google Maps used on all sorts of weird little restaurant sites, and other places.

Why? Well, in part, because they work fast. In part because they were the first to use AJAX so that you could drag them around. In part, because they have an API so you can do weird stuff with them. But also, in part, because there’s no weird “monetization strategy” on them. Think about if you’re a restaurant and Google lets companies start to advertise on the maps — you could potentially be displaying ads for your competitor ON YOUR OWN SITE!

Lucovsky and Seth are the first two to show us that Google’s strategy is shifting more toward a Microsoft one. That’s something that bums me out, but opens opportunities for other companies to rebuild their brand names and get Web site developers/designers and bloggers to switch to them.

Why did that mess with Microsoft’s business model? Well, they had no way to deal with troublemakers who wanted to do Web services for free without any advertising on them who wanted to spend 10s of millions of dollars of the company money. Inside Microsoft that’s called a marketing expense and you need to convince the marketing department that such an expense would be justified.

I thought the strategy of raining down hundreds of free code gadgets that do things like Lucovsky’s video bar was brilliant. Microsoft would be hard pressed to match Google if Google continued to do just that — too many people inside Microsoft who run product teams think first about monetization. Even if those people recognize the strategy that Google was using against them (they did) it slowed them down in convincing stages to make it easy for teams inside Microsoft to come up with something new without having a good monetization strategy in place first.

Is this going to retard usage of those gadgets on Web sites? You betcha! It’s one of the reasons why Toni Schneider and Matt Mullenweg won’t let WordPress.com users put gadgets on their blog.

And, take blogs out of the picture for a minute, if I were a big company would I put a Google search engine on my Web site? I sure will think twice about doing that.

Here’s why: you’re forced to see ads. Possibly even your competitor’s ads. Imagine going to General Motors, doing a search, and seeing ads for BMW and Toyota. If a CMO allowed that to happen I bet they’d get fired the first time a board member saw those ads showing up.

Did you realize that over on Naked Conversations, our book blog about corporate blogging, we can’t put Google ads on there?

Why not? Well when we tried Google ads we got a ton of porn advertising (we’re the #10 result for “naked”). Yes, we’ve out SEO’d the porn industry, but that means we can’t take Google ads cause Google ads (unlike ads, from, say, FM Media) won’t let us choose which advertising we want on our pages. So, we removed the Google ad bar from our blog.

This is what Dave Winer and I were talking about this morning. We’re looking at a lot of Google advertising on Gmail, on blogs, on Web sites, and other places and we’re unimpressed. On the main search engine it makes a lot of sense (and is why probably 98% of Google’s revenues come from advertising on Google.com). But on blogs? On Gmail? On other components? It makes a lot lot less sense.

What does make sense is when you see a Google map object, or a videobar, that it keeps the Google brand in your face and makes you feel good about Google. That messes with Microsoft in a big way. It’s the new-age equivilent of doing advertising on the Super Bowl or the World Cup.

I want to put Google stuff on my blogs, but not if Google’s gonna be making money off of my content (or forcing me to make money off of my content).

One thing I’d like to work on with other community members is a list of gadgets/widgets/codebits that will guarantee that there’s no advertising that’ll be forced down.

Wanna help? We probably should open a wiki. Oh, heck, I just did that over on Wetpaint. Funny enough there’s Google ads on that Wiki. :-)

UPDATE: a commenter here, OR, says that the ads were actually added in response to user requests (they share revenue with site owners). My answer? That’s a good point, but that should be a choice so that on sites that I don’t want to accept advertising I can turn that off.

Comments

  1. I think you need more evidence to say that they changed strategy, since there are things they put their ads on and things they don’t. For example, Google Docs and Spreadsheets has no ads, also picaso web albums, and Google Calendar has no ads if I remember correctly. Google Reader has no ads, and the share page has no ads.

    Google has always placed there ads on some products and not on others. They still release products without no clear way of monetizing it. The fact the two products you are speaking of require ads really does not suggest a change, since there are other recently released products that does not require ads.

  2. I think you need more evidence to say that they changed strategy, since there are things they put their ads on and things they don’t. For example, Google Docs and Spreadsheets has no ads, also picaso web albums, and Google Calendar has no ads if I remember correctly. Google Reader has no ads, and the share page has no ads.

    Google has always placed there ads on some products and not on others. They still release products without no clear way of monetizing it. The fact the two products you are speaking of require ads really does not suggest a change, since there are other recently released products that does not require ads.

  3. Also, funny thing about Google Coop. At first there was not an advertising component. It was added because of the request of users, and to encourage more developers to participate since the revenue is shared. And more people have participated as a result.

  4. Also, funny thing about Google Coop. At first there was not an advertising component. It was added because of the request of users, and to encourage more developers to participate since the revenue is shared. And more people have participated as a result.

  5. OR: good point. I’ve changed the headline to more accurately reflect that this COULD reflect a change in monetization strategy.

    Mostly it’s my gesture to Google to make it more clear so that we know what the monetization strategy WILL be. What guarantees do we have that they won’t start putting ads on all those components?

  6. OR: good point. I’ve changed the headline to more accurately reflect that this COULD reflect a change in monetization strategy.

    Mostly it’s my gesture to Google to make it more clear so that we know what the monetization strategy WILL be. What guarantees do we have that they won’t start putting ads on all those components?

  7. Interesting post… though I thought that only about 1/2 of google revenue came from search ads. I can’t find a source to verify this, unfortunately.

    But anyway… are there more data points to indicate a “change in strategy”? It seems too early to call this a change in strategy considering how many other products seem to have no clear (direct) monetization plan upon release. Looking at Google’s latest releases (say, things new in the last month), I don’t find the trend compelling (yet), but perhaps someone will correct me on that.

  8. Interesting post… though I thought that only about 1/2 of google revenue came from search ads. I can’t find a source to verify this, unfortunately.

    But anyway… are there more data points to indicate a “change in strategy”? It seems too early to call this a change in strategy considering how many other products seem to have no clear (direct) monetization plan upon release. Looking at Google’s latest releases (say, things new in the last month), I don’t find the trend compelling (yet), but perhaps someone will correct me on that.

  9. Matt: it’s certainly something I’ll track more closely.

    I also wish that each gadget had an API for “advertising” which would let me be warned when that API starts shipping advertising. Let’s say I had 10,000 pages on a corporate site, like Procter and Gambles’ or General Motors or something like that, and I used a map gadget that didn’t seem to have advertising when I started using it. I sure would rather that gadget warned me if the TOS changed.

  10. Matt: it’s certainly something I’ll track more closely.

    I also wish that each gadget had an API for “advertising” which would let me be warned when that API starts shipping advertising. Let’s say I had 10,000 pages on a corporate site, like Procter and Gambles’ or General Motors or something like that, and I used a map gadget that didn’t seem to have advertising when I started using it. I sure would rather that gadget warned me if the TOS changed.

  11. “I want to put Google stuff on my blogs, but not if Google’s going to be making money off of my content (or forcing me to make money off of my content).”

    Why not?

    I understand about the crossing of ads but I think that is really part of the trade. They make really cool stuff that you want to use.
    (Have you asked them how to correct your issue?)

    Lets imagine that they won’t correct your issue and
    Let’s look at older models ….Like cable companies.
    Local access content generally sucks but they provide a conduit for ‘Me’ -the end consumer- to mostly watch the other ‘professional’ content that I want. And that content probably wouldn’t be found by me. The content that they provide used to cost just the cost of the Hardware to bring it out to your house.
    (I remember a 7$ cable bill and 12 channels, 5 of them local.)

    Now all the content providers charge them to rebroadcast. (And they take a chunk too) My biggest craw is the Local channels get $ from cable for signal that was free. –Ok back on topic–

    Google is a little different … Their search is the best. That is their product. Everything else is extra.

    If Google doesn’t find you, you might not get the hits, or you might still. But they don’t actually provide the content. The just bring the eyeballs.

    I think where ever they have their search, the ads are. Things that are not search don’t have advertizing.

    What do you think?

    P.s. I still think they are messing with MSFT.

  12. “I want to put Google stuff on my blogs, but not if Google’s going to be making money off of my content (or forcing me to make money off of my content).”

    Why not?

    I understand about the crossing of ads but I think that is really part of the trade. They make really cool stuff that you want to use.
    (Have you asked them how to correct your issue?)

    Lets imagine that they won’t correct your issue and
    Let’s look at older models ….Like cable companies.
    Local access content generally sucks but they provide a conduit for ‘Me’ -the end consumer- to mostly watch the other ‘professional’ content that I want. And that content probably wouldn’t be found by me. The content that they provide used to cost just the cost of the Hardware to bring it out to your house.
    (I remember a 7$ cable bill and 12 channels, 5 of them local.)

    Now all the content providers charge them to rebroadcast. (And they take a chunk too) My biggest craw is the Local channels get $ from cable for signal that was free. –Ok back on topic–

    Google is a little different … Their search is the best. That is their product. Everything else is extra.

    If Google doesn’t find you, you might not get the hits, or you might still. But they don’t actually provide the content. The just bring the eyeballs.

    I think where ever they have their search, the ads are. Things that are not search don’t have advertizing.

    What do you think?

    P.s. I still think they are messing with MSFT.

  13. cra451: that’s true, but Shashi Seth is pitching a custom Google search engine for use on Web pages. Let’s say you’re a Web developer for Marriott. I could see using such a search engine to let users of Marriott’s Web site search just Marriott’s Web properties. Problem is, if Marriott did that, all of a sudden ads for Hilton are showing up. In fact, Hilton, if it knew that Marriott was using Google’s search engine, could put ads specifically aimed at Marriott customers. “Marriott Customers, come to Hilton and we’ll give you half off your first night’s stay.”

    Now, again, why would Marriott want to do that? I sure wouldn’t and anyone who put such a feature on my site would get fired if I were the Marriott’s marketing executive.

  14. cra451: that’s true, but Shashi Seth is pitching a custom Google search engine for use on Web pages. Let’s say you’re a Web developer for Marriott. I could see using such a search engine to let users of Marriott’s Web site search just Marriott’s Web properties. Problem is, if Marriott did that, all of a sudden ads for Hilton are showing up. In fact, Hilton, if it knew that Marriott was using Google’s search engine, could put ads specifically aimed at Marriott customers. “Marriott Customers, come to Hilton and we’ll give you half off your first night’s stay.”

    Now, again, why would Marriott want to do that? I sure wouldn’t and anyone who put such a feature on my site would get fired if I were the Marriott’s marketing executive.

  15. Stuff like this worries me greatly and some extent leaves a bitter after taste, if Google uses huge developer community buy in for it’s widgets then rips the rug out with ads. Well I’d kinda be disappointed in Google as a brand and how they presented themselves to me now, if in future they pump ads into my properties then it just turns all the value and positive engagement so far into nothing more than a loss leader.

    While the widgets and services are free to use it’s certainly holding new players out of the market, folks who may monetize through tiny fees for enterprise and heavy users perhaps. Why? because the clever folks just build mash ups instead of their own services. It’s almost as if Google’s using it’s size to squash the opposition before raping web? It’s almost like closing a open source code that’s out there in the wild.

    It’s really sad to see Google moving away from the “Value rules” mentality and the economics of “Because”

  16. Stuff like this worries me greatly and some extent leaves a bitter after taste, if Google uses huge developer community buy in for it’s widgets then rips the rug out with ads. Well I’d kinda be disappointed in Google as a brand and how they presented themselves to me now, if in future they pump ads into my properties then it just turns all the value and positive engagement so far into nothing more than a loss leader.

    While the widgets and services are free to use it’s certainly holding new players out of the market, folks who may monetize through tiny fees for enterprise and heavy users perhaps. Why? because the clever folks just build mash ups instead of their own services. It’s almost as if Google’s using it’s size to squash the opposition before raping web? It’s almost like closing a open source code that’s out there in the wild.

    It’s really sad to see Google moving away from the “Value rules” mentality and the economics of “Because”

  17. Robert,

    In response to comment #8 – keep in mind, Coop publishes can specifically block any sites they wish from the control panel or XML doc they use to create their custom engine.

    I also think Google is always advertising in their products, maybe they are not always shoving Adwords down our throats, but they are certainly building the Google brand on every product out there loud and clear. There is also (almost) always a clever opportunity from any Google product to click something, somewhere, that will bring you to a search that is monetized with ads. (Such as the ‘find business’ link in maps).

  18. Robert,

    In response to comment #8 – keep in mind, Coop publishes can specifically block any sites they wish from the control panel or XML doc they use to create their custom engine.

    I also think Google is always advertising in their products, maybe they are not always shoving Adwords down our throats, but they are certainly building the Google brand on every product out there loud and clear. There is also (almost) always a clever opportunity from any Google product to click something, somewhere, that will bring you to a search that is monetized with ads. (Such as the ‘find business’ link in maps).

  19. I’m still curious on what they say after you ask them about your problem?

    The first thing I would think is that you can (should) be able to set a “safe search” or better yet do they have a “safe ads” setting.

    Second could you set up a approved partner ads list. Like ads that you’d like to see. Other approved blogs, events, sponsors, etc?

  20. I’m still curious on what they say after you ask them about your problem?

    The first thing I would think is that you can (should) be able to set a “safe search” or better yet do they have a “safe ads” setting.

    Second could you set up a approved partner ads list. Like ads that you’d like to see. Other approved blogs, events, sponsors, etc?

  21. Mostly it’s my gesture to Google to make it more clear so that we know what the monetization strategy WILL be. What guarantees do we have that they won’t start putting ads on all those components?

    Comment by Robert Scoble — December 16, 2006 @ 2:51 pm

    “…what the monetizations strategy WILL be.” Remnants of MSThink still remain, even after self-recognition of this thinking style early on in the column.

    You DO know what the strategy WILL be. This is the way Google has performed in the past, as you pointed out, and will likely continue in the future.

    They may try ads, it may be successful it may not and thus turn into a marketing expense by discontinuing ads but building greater brand affinity and thus offering Google the opportunity earn more on Google.com search ads/network.

    What you’re reporting may be nothing more than experimentation with implementation as they’ve done in the past.

    This is the competitve agility that Web 2.0 has afforded to companies like Google that build software applications for the “clouds” over those such as MS that build for the PC.

    Tom

  22. Mostly it’s my gesture to Google to make it more clear so that we know what the monetization strategy WILL be. What guarantees do we have that they won’t start putting ads on all those components?

    Comment by Robert Scoble — December 16, 2006 @ 2:51 pm

    “…what the monetizations strategy WILL be.” Remnants of MSThink still remain, even after self-recognition of this thinking style early on in the column.

    You DO know what the strategy WILL be. This is the way Google has performed in the past, as you pointed out, and will likely continue in the future.

    They may try ads, it may be successful it may not and thus turn into a marketing expense by discontinuing ads but building greater brand affinity and thus offering Google the opportunity earn more on Google.com search ads/network.

    What you’re reporting may be nothing more than experimentation with implementation as they’ve done in the past.

    This is the competitve agility that Web 2.0 has afforded to companies like Google that build software applications for the “clouds” over those such as MS that build for the PC.

    Tom

  23. Google put ads on their search, but its not OK to put ads on their search in someone elses website? Thats a stupid argument.

    They would be foolish to not force people to put ads on their custom search engines. because someone could set up a CSE with nothing changed from Google, and everyone could go there and get exactly the same results as from Google, using Google’s resources, but without any advertising.

    And note they do let you have no advertising if you are a registered non-profit organisation

    They are giving people a chance to share revenue by adding value to Google’s search in vertical markets. Thats going to please more people than providing a free service which makes no one money if they put time and effort into making a niche search engine.

  24. Google put ads on their search, but its not OK to put ads on their search in someone elses website? Thats a stupid argument.

    They would be foolish to not force people to put ads on their custom search engines. because someone could set up a CSE with nothing changed from Google, and everyone could go there and get exactly the same results as from Google, using Google’s resources, but without any advertising.

    And note they do let you have no advertising if you are a registered non-profit organisation

    They are giving people a chance to share revenue by adding value to Google’s search in vertical markets. Thats going to please more people than providing a free service which makes no one money if they put time and effort into making a niche search engine.

  25. No needs for Google to put ads on maps or others gadgets to make money. Just like with free stats tracker – Google can make money by logging all the places user visit. Each user/browser is issued an unique cookie – even if not cookie – IP address and date/time can be logged. Next time user will visit site with Ads – Google will fire everything to him with best possible accuracy.

    This is there Google will outperform anybody else – they know that each user do on Internet. No any other AdSense-like or banner-exchange company will be able to get this kind of fine tuned targeting anymore.

  26. No needs for Google to put ads on maps or others gadgets to make money. Just like with free stats tracker – Google can make money by logging all the places user visit. Each user/browser is issued an unique cookie – even if not cookie – IP address and date/time can be logged. Next time user will visit site with Ads – Google will fire everything to him with best possible accuracy.

    This is there Google will outperform anybody else – they know that each user do on Internet. No any other AdSense-like or banner-exchange company will be able to get this kind of fine tuned targeting anymore.

  27. I agree with TAG. This is why I hesitate to use Google Checkout and recommend it to businesses. Google makes Checkout very attractive compared to Paypal. There is a catch. Google will retain the rights to observe everything you do. They track all your business details.

    If you want more privacy to protect your clients or business, it may be better off to use merchant account at a higher fee.

    Same apply to Google App. You want privacy. Use your own server and Desktop products like Microsoft.

  28. I agree with TAG. This is why I hesitate to use Google Checkout and recommend it to businesses. Google makes Checkout very attractive compared to Paypal. There is a catch. Google will retain the rights to observe everything you do. They track all your business details.

    If you want more privacy to protect your clients or business, it may be better off to use merchant account at a higher fee.

    Same apply to Google App. You want privacy. Use your own server and Desktop products like Microsoft.

  29. Don’t think google makes 98% of their revenue from google.com. Adsense makes for 45% or more….

    Gmail ads are very well targetted. I know people who think gmail doesn’t make much money… I feel it makes a ton of money (revenue per user anyone?).

    As per free software… I feel we pay for using google by making clicks. We buy things/services through google ads, paying them a few cents every time. I (hopefully advanced user) might have clicked on google ads 100 times this year. Taking TAC into account (although most clicks were on google.com and gmail) and assuming a CPC of 30 cents thats $30 given by me to google. I might have converted 5% of the time….So effectively $200-300 of my spending was done through google. Do the math… American families (4-5 people) must be spending 1000′s through google (ads or not).

    Effectively we all are paying for using google! :-)

  30. Don’t think google makes 98% of their revenue from google.com. Adsense makes for 45% or more….

    Gmail ads are very well targetted. I know people who think gmail doesn’t make much money… I feel it makes a ton of money (revenue per user anyone?).

    As per free software… I feel we pay for using google by making clicks. We buy things/services through google ads, paying them a few cents every time. I (hopefully advanced user) might have clicked on google ads 100 times this year. Taking TAC into account (although most clicks were on google.com and gmail) and assuming a CPC of 30 cents thats $30 given by me to google. I might have converted 5% of the time….So effectively $200-300 of my spending was done through google. Do the math… American families (4-5 people) must be spending 1000′s through google (ads or not).

    Effectively we all are paying for using google! :-)

  31. Funny thing you should mention not having Google ads on your blog because you don’t want Google to make money off of your content or be forced by Google to make money from your site. I ended up pulling the Google Ads off of Designer Today and several of my other content sites because of that exact same reason. I still run AdSense on some of our sites but none that have my unique content on them. I am glad someone finally made mention of Google monetizing their content, or being forced to do so.

  32. Funny thing you should mention not having Google ads on your blog because you don’t want Google to make money off of your content or be forced by Google to make money from your site. I ended up pulling the Google Ads off of Designer Today and several of my other content sites because of that exact same reason. I still run AdSense on some of our sites but none that have my unique content on them. I am glad someone finally made mention of Google monetizing their content, or being forced to do so.

  33. [...] Robert Scoble’s Frustrations and why branding on Internet is different Over at the Scobleizer blog two days ago, Robert Scoble (author of Naked Conversations) shared about Google changing its monetization strategy toward a Microsoft one… an in his post he mentioned a particular frustration about Google ads: Did you realize that over on Naked Conversations, our book blog about corporate blogging, we can’t put Google ads on there? [...]

  34. [...] Robert Scoble had a really interesting post on this issue. I’ve got to ask one question though Robert! In Naked Conversations, Robert talks about how you should point to your competitors and even talking positively about them.  How is a likely non-relevant ad on a map on your web site more of a threat than you saying “company x does well with blah-blah”? I don’t get the logic here, am I missing something? These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

  35. Bess: Just a FYI. Robert already has shared all information about his blog visitors with Google by putting Google-analytics JavaScript on each and every page.

    Even more. The way Google use it’s technology – JavaScript includes instead of one-pixel pictures or small script sniplets make it possible to start showing ads any time Google will wish so – just put instructions for this into script already included by millions of web-pages.

    They can even change content of this my comment (or Robert posting) using JavaScript instructions from urchin.js. They can steal my email address or figure out my IP address (and my Google account ID) I’m posting this comment from. I.e. Robert give them infinite power over his website and as result my browser by hot-linking to JavaScript from Google servers (it’s like Goatse picture on Microsoft RSS team blog).

    It’s all about then they will need to resort to doing this. Currently they don’t need to do this as money already flowing in at high rate. But then this flow will stop – major Google shareholders can demand to monetize all “nice” things we have now.
    Also this can be done even today as “matter of National Security” or after judge order or only for website visitors from Tibet or China seeking for democracy information.

  36. Bess: Just a FYI. Robert already has shared all information about his blog visitors with Google by putting Google-analytics JavaScript on each and every page.

    Even more. The way Google use it’s technology – JavaScript includes instead of one-pixel pictures or small script sniplets make it possible to start showing ads any time Google will wish so – just put instructions for this into script already included by millions of web-pages.

    They can even change content of this my comment (or Robert posting) using JavaScript instructions from urchin.js. They can steal my email address or figure out my IP address (and my Google account ID) I’m posting this comment from. I.e. Robert give them infinite power over his website and as result my browser by hot-linking to JavaScript from Google servers (it’s like Goatse picture on Microsoft RSS team blog).

    It’s all about then they will need to resort to doing this. Currently they don’t need to do this as money already flowing in at high rate. But then this flow will stop – major Google shareholders can demand to monetize all “nice” things we have now.
    Also this can be done even today as “matter of National Security” or after judge order or only for website visitors from Tibet or China seeking for democracy information.

  37. Stumbled onto your site through WoedPress…nice read!

    Regarding Googles advertising policy, I’ve noticed this for a few months now and the fears expressed here seem very real already. A prime example I’ve seen is with political websites (disclosure; I am a conservative). For months now, it seems they have been trying their hand a “social engineering” on political sites via the ads. Go to almost any Conservative website with a Google search and look at the ads…ALL, yes ALL are for Liberal sites and Democrat related material. Going to Liberal sites you find ads for, well, more Liberal sites! Googles political leanings is no great secret to anyone, but if they are willing to do this from an idealogical standpoint, they most certainly would do it from a monetary one. The example of Marriot Hotels is, I fera, an eventuality.

  38. Stumbled onto your site through WoedPress…nice read!

    Regarding Googles advertising policy, I’ve noticed this for a few months now and the fears expressed here seem very real already. A prime example I’ve seen is with political websites (disclosure; I am a conservative). For months now, it seems they have been trying their hand a “social engineering” on political sites via the ads. Go to almost any Conservative website with a Google search and look at the ads…ALL, yes ALL are for Liberal sites and Democrat related material. Going to Liberal sites you find ads for, well, more Liberal sites! Googles political leanings is no great secret to anyone, but if they are willing to do this from an idealogical standpoint, they most certainly would do it from a monetary one. The example of Marriot Hotels is, I fera, an eventuality.

  39. ((((( Discover Hidden Cash Profits! )))))
    Do you hold your orders in one hand at the end of the
    month and say, “Sheesh! This is truly the pits!”???

  40. The easiest and most profitable way to monetize a website is to charge a cover charge. I charge $1.00 per day to visitors of my Franworst.com site. Unlike your site, they get many times more than $1.00 value from each visit.

    To those who say it doesn’t work, or it’s bad form, I say: “That’s why I’m a millionaire and you’re not.”

    Millionaire Richard Quick, Esq.
    Franworst.com

  41. The easiest and most profitable way to monetize a website is to charge a cover charge. I charge $1.00 per day to visitors of my Franworst.com site. Unlike your site, they get many times more than $1.00 value from each visit.

    To those who say it doesn’t work, or it’s bad form, I say: “That’s why I’m a millionaire and you’re not.”

    Millionaire Richard Quick, Esq.
    Franworst.com